Great Leader / Heartless Murderer

[hannibol43]

I saw people commenting on this issue other places but not in one spot. I have been gone for a few weeks so I apologize if this is a reoccuring topic (I didn't see it).

Many of the so-called great leader in civ3 can be looked at from two sides of the coin. Alexander the great is considered Alexander the Barbarian to many.

Originally posted by Bismarck:
There's a difference between conquering another nation, and systematically purging millions of your country's own citizens. Alexander was guilty of the former, but not of the latter.

On the contrary Alexander was repsonsible for the killins of hundreds of thousands of civilians in his conquest of western Asia. He would go into a town and have the men conscripted into the army and the women raped by current members of his army from other part of the world. This is how he "controlled" places he had conquered. He was also notorius for destroying vilages of people. Now what were his positive accomplishments again?

Henry VIII only lopped off the heads of several of his wives for not having male Children (keep in mind that men are repsonsible for the sex of children) and renounced his religion for his own personal gain. That's leader i want my kid to grow up like?

And to be fair Shaka was only great to Zulus and not even them if you were his enemy. Shaka had very horrible ways of keeping discipline in his army as well as punishing his enemies. He was a madman when it came to warfare having no consideration for life just victory over his enemies. Those in his army were denied many freedoms and were killed if they did not fight well. His treatment of the innocent of other tribes was also disheartening.

History is written by the victor and not often will they protray themselves with the negatives as well as the positives. The good just sounds so much better.

Hitler was a horrible man but had many positive traits. The same could be said about some the U.S. great president and Europe great Monarchs that could be said of Hitler, both positive and negative.

------------------
"Hannibol Ad Portas!"

 

[Ubik01]

*warning, long post*

Hannibol, what kind of history are you reading man? I mean, first the "black Egypt"

thing and now this about Alexander.

Sorry to spoil your game, but this is how it goes: Alexander was considered - in his times, please notice this (I'll explain later on) - as a rather civilized conqueror. And that was a great compliment, since it was kinda rare those days.

He did ransacked a couple of cities (in Phoenicia and in the far east) but generally he treated the local population in a manner that angered his own soldiers! You know that the Greek army was in the edge of revolting just before Alexander died off, because of the way he (did not) treated the local populations?

Alexander had a small force. He began with rughly 38-40.000 men from Greece (southern and Macedonia). He didn't recruit any locals before he went into Baktra. In that latter stage of his conquest he did so (and I really wouldn't be able to tell if that recruiting was "force" or not - seems like the local "barons" of a sort, did go with Alexander and gave him their troops too).

As I said, Alexander ransacked a couple (or three, I have to look up for that) cities, just to set an example of who is the new ruler. He didn't do anything like that in Egypt or Asia Minor, he did it only in Phoenicia. Why? Because the local population didn't fell for his divine image as the other did. You have to take into consideration two more factors about this:

- Pillaging and looting (and selling the inhabitants as slaves) a city of a defeated empire/nation/whatever, was a very common habit at times. In the Rome-Karthago war, it happened in every city one of the combatants captured! Same in Ceasar's trip to Gaul - and to an extend Alexander never dreamed off.

- The Persian empire was inhabited by dozens of different ethnic groups. The Persian themselves were only a small minority and also located in a very specific territory. And the Persian rule wasn't excactly a humanitarian one (again, try to read some history). So, almost every population (the Phoenicians and the barbarian tribes of the far east, those in Parthia and Baktria excluded) faced the Greeks as liberators and not conquerors.

And there is simple logic to it: The Greek army was small. With such a force (and only 4 to 5000 new recruits every year from Greece) Alexander couldn't possibly control such a huge empire. So, he needed desperately the cooperation of (at least a part of) the local population.

If he commited so many atrocities as you state, how the heck would even one local work with the Greeks? And don't forget that the Greeks ruled that part of the world for a couple of centuries (in the case of Egypt even more) how could they possibly do that, strangers in a strange land, without the cooperation of the locals?

No, my friend, you are talking nonsense. Please, the next time you talk about something try to gather more accurate data, or you just humiliate yourself.

If you want a more general discussion about the war ethics in the ancient world, I can surely provide you with some interesting data - but then you shall call every great conqueror "a butcher" - that is how the world was back then, a bit rougher than today.

Regards

 

[Michiel de Ruyter]

If you can , please respond by naming a few of Hitlers positive traits.

On the subject of Alexanders way of war, that was just the way war was fought up to the 18th century, armies were paid by the loot they captured and not with regular wages.

For example in the 80 years war the Spanish looted Antwerpen because they werent paid for a long time

Concluding you must keep in mind the time in wich the people ruled.
Some rulers were clearly mad , because they were taught they had a divine right to rule and their subjects were of less importance.

In a monarchy the heir always got the throne, no mather how mad he was, indeed some monarchs were actually called **** the Mad. Nowadays monarchies luckily aren't that important anymore.

In my eyes this means a great plus for a democratic government, because today our rulers aren't raised to rule, but first expirience "REAL LIFE".

------------------
"If your attack is going very well, it's probably an ambush."
"Never forget that your weapon was made by the lowest bidder."
"Teamwork is essential; it gives the enemy other people to shoot at."
"If the enemy is within range, so are you."
"Whenever you lose contact with the enemy, look behind you."
"The easy way is always mined."
"Five second fuzes always burn three seconds."

 

[floppa21]

You gotta keep in mind things were a LITTLE different back then. Alexander the Great today would be a sick creepy pervert...(and I don't think I need to go into detail eh?) Anyways, I guess my point is this. HISTORY was my worst subject because there is no way to get an UNBIASED history and I didn't want to learn opinions. I can form my own thanks. Remember to take things with a grain of salt.

 

[hannibol43]

Hmmm. Lets see how did the slaveholding south keep control of a population of slaves that outnumbered whites in some states (such as Carolina)?? Or how about the U.S. civilizing so many Native Americans. Or Europeans subjugate 2 entire Continents full of people. Are we naive enough to think that a few well trained and armed troops could not do this. Surely there were those who cooperated but certainly not most. History teaches us otherwise. and if it could be done in Africa and North and South America so recently then why not in Asia 2500 years ago. If the Greeks were as technologically advanced as we are told then it would not take an overwhelmingly great number of greeks to subjugate a nonunified front of Asians who at the time had no identifiable Empires or Large Civilizations. The Greeks troops were in revolt because they were thousands of miles from home and had already conquered most of the Known world what more was there to fight for? I only wish the druken bastard would have made to China. Then he could have died a warriors death. Again I can give you popular and not so popular references. My history is alternative to what you may have been taught but no less suspect.

As for Hitler make no mistakes, i don't like him what so ever. Hitler was most likely the closest we've seen to evil in a long time. But he did unify a nation in chaos, turning that nation into a pioneer in scientific as well as military pursuits. I mean under hitler the germans developed some of the first computers, metal alloys (in the modern sense), rockets etc. That is all I do not glorify the man, but i could care less about our so called great presidents like Andrew Jackson or Theodore Roosevelt also. Andrew Jackson was responsible for the removal and death of 100,000's of native americans in their native land. Aside from the fact that he owned and was a proponent of the enslavement of others. Thoedore Roosevelt invadeed such mighty and powerful nations as Cuba and Panama and did nothing to prevent the death of some of the great leaders in Central America from being assasinated by American backed factions. On top of this he nothing to stop some of the worst atrocities that blacks had suffered since slavery. Even our fore fathers were hippocrits. They wrote how all men were equal but had there slaves go fecth the pen and paper to write on. Washington was a shrewd and cruel business man and Thomas Jefferson fathered several slave children. These the good upstanding Christian lifestyles I should honor.

------------------
"Hannibol Ad Portas!"

 

[hannibol43]

I agree floppa, everything i state i have read the opposing views also so that i could figure out what I believed. I struggle with history for the same reasons. I do not propose that if you do not believe what I believe then you are wrong but feel I must make others aware a my research. I am black but i do not agree with all black historians who propose a pro-black view of the world. I decide for myself, but point well taken.

Also I do understand that today's war is diffrent from yesterday's warfare but that doesn't excuse behavior. What some of these great leaders did was horrible. I just thought there should be some discussion on the pros and cons of Great Leaders. Even my man Hannibal had some bad practices. Like torturing those who didn't surrender. And that thing at Saguntum Sheesh!! If i was brought up not to like white people (or something) that doesn't mean that i should not like them. I should be able to think for myself after all if they were Great Leaders then isn't that a major part of leadership thinking for yourself?


(and I like white people fine

)

------------------
"Hannibol Ad Portas!"

 

[Hammanu]

I think that you are on to something in your rant, hanibal. We may be hypocritical in considering these rulers. To me, a "Great" ruler is a strong ruler that leads his nation to glory. I wouldnt want to be related to one of those men, but even today, in the world of political correctness, they rule us with blood and iron from behind the scenes. We are in awe of them all, regardles of the degree of their evil- Genghis, Elizabeth of England, Napoleon, Stalin, Madeline Allbright. Heartless murderers- yes, but as long as they murder people unrelated to us their actions inspire awe and respect.

 

[floppa21]

Damn Hannibol, you go!

I agree with ya, most "great leaders" were also committers of atrocious acts... But they are remembered for the good and not the bad... That whole Raskolnikov thing, death to one for the sake of many... This history stuff goes to the media also, but I guess that would be a whole new thread... We hear one side, don't forget, there's always a second side AND the third side which is the truth.

 

[Bismarck]

There's no doubt that leaders often act in morally reprehensible ways. To a certain degree, it comes with the job. HOWEVER, there is still a huge difference, both in quality and quantity, between the evils done by, say, Alexander and Hitler.

In part, this is because Hitler lived in a much more morally advanced era than Alexander: infanticide, slavery, the killing of unfaithful wives, and other such practices were all legal and widespread in Alexander's time, but not in Hitler's. Therefore, not only are modern dictators guilty of worse atrocities, but they are also *far behind the times*, morally speaking. They commit their actions in an age where people, generally speaking, know better.

Ubik01 is right: Alexander did his best to ingratiate himself with the local peoples. The empire he destroyed, the Persian empire, was corrupt and decadent, and many of the subject peoples welcomed him as a liberator (remember, the Persian king was not democratically elected). He respected their beliefs and local autonomy, and sought to create a cultural union between the peoples of Persia and the Greeks (for example, he forced many of his officers to marry Persian wives). The only example of wanton destruction I can think of is the sacking of Tyre -- and only because they resisted his conquest bitterly.

You can't compare this to the acts of history's greatest serial killers (Hitler, Stalin, Timurlane, Genghis Khan, etc.)

 

[Chronus]

HOWEVER, there is still a huge difference, both in quality and quantity, between the evils done by, say, Alexander and Hitler.

Hmmmmmm ... for some reason this just has a strange (and tragic) ring to it. I see your point ... but still ...

 

[Ubik01]

Bismarck

There is not much to add since good Bismarck said most of it - the most important parts at least. Alexander was a great military leader, a very well educated man (you know who his main teacher was, hannibol?) and he sought after the local population cooperation - not because of him being humanitarian and all but because he needed that cooperation. And, surely hannibol you cannot compare the rifle/musket armed Europeans in their shiny armors facing a bunch of primitive spearmen, with the (yes, advanced, yes sofisticated but still nothing more than advanced spearmen and archers etc.) Greeks, right?

About history's greatest serial killers, I would add to Bismarck's list the conquistadores and the E. India company. And Napoleon. And many more...

 

[Wexu]

How 'bout Vlad the Impaler? I heard he was a very nice guy..

 

[Ubik01]

Vlad was a quite impressive figure. After all, he was the one who stopped the Turks from conquering the whole Europe... Oh, well, he had some nasty habits too

 

[boca]

Leaders are judged according to the times they lived. That's why Alexander is a great guy and Hitler is not. However the sufferment caused on the people knows no history.
It hurt's the same.

 

[hannibol43]

Aristotle to your question Ubik.

Points all well taken. We may have a different perspective on things but I enjoy the objective discussion. My major point was that our great leaders are sometimes great and somestimes not so great and most often a mix. Just thought the good and bad should be mentioned. There are very few "great" men in my own view.

(sorry for my rant floppa

)

------------------
"Hannibol Ad Portas!"

 

[Ubik01]

Hannibol, that is precisely my point, with a little objection: Greatness is a relative thing and definitely is about one aspect of a man, not the whole of him.

A good and effective leader (has to be good and effective to stand a chance to make it to "greatness") has to be fairly cruel, unhearted and unsensitive. This is just how things work.

Not to mention (once more) that we are talking about the past, when things were a bit rough. So, not too many "good" people make it to leadership, let alone "greatness".

So, I don't have any delusions about "Great" men and all that. I recognize everyone for what he was. Neuton was a immoral, wicked, perverted, rascist bastard. So what? He established physics as a science. He is great, even though as a man he was a real rat.

Alexander was a great military leader and a conqueror of no equal. Those qualities noone can deny. Surely he wasn't the perfect man... but, as I said, perfection doesn't lead to anything.

 

[stormerne]

<FONT COLOR="blue">I've got to remind everyone that this is a Civ3 forum and not a historical or ethical discussion forum (much as I really like those sorts of things). Any tentative connection with Civ3 seems to have diappeared from the thread. So... either bring it back on line with Civ3, or start a general discussion like this in Off-Topic, or maybe I'll just have to close this thread.</FONT c>

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.anglo-saxon.demon.co.uk/stormerne/stormerne.gif" border=0>

 

[duke o' york]

Stormerne, I don't think this topic was ever related to Civ. Everyone here seems to have confused the leader of a civ (Alexander) with the new great leader idea, whereby you have another unit (I don't know - Agamemnon or Menelaus to continue the Greek theme) that is conferred with great leader status in a similar way to veterans in Civ II. Even then, this flimsy relation to the actual game gave way to a lot of hot air vaguely related to selected histories and barely related to Civ at all. Please close or move this.

------------------
in vino veritas

 

[hannibol43]

I agree, we quickly got off the point; BUT my original point was to talk about the "Great" Leaders for the civs in civ3 Alexander being one of them.

------------------
"Hannibol Ad Portas!"